JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 16.01.2019 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No. 22/2018, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with further default stipulations.

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 20.04.2018 at about 8:10 a.m., Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station- Mohan Nagar namely Daya Shankar Pandey (PW-5) received information through informer that the appellant named above who is residing in Narharpar, Urla selling ganja to customers. After receiving the information, legal formalities were complied with, thereafter, police party made a search and on search 1 kg. and 200 grams of contraband article ganja was found in possession of the appellant in a small bag. The matter was investigated, appellant was charge-sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-

(i) Mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is not complied with, therefore, finding of the trial court is not liable to be sustained.

(ii) There is no corroboration to the evidence of investigating officer. In absence of corroboration, it is not safe to convict the appellant in the crime in question.

(iii) The finding arrived at by the trial court is not proper, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the trial court is based on relevant material placed on record and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court with invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. First question for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant was in possession of contraband article ganja. Assistant Sub-Inspector- Daya Shankar Pandey (PW-5) deposed before the trial court that on information about sale of contraband article ganja by the appellant, he recorded the information in Rojnamcha Sanha as per Ex. P/22 and information was sent to City Superintendent of Police, Durg which is received by Reader of the said office and the same was registered in Rojnamcha Sanha as per Ex. P/27. As per version of this witness, he proceeded to the spot with lady Constable- Pusha Rajput (No. 246) and other constable. A notice under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was served to the appellant and search of appellant was made by lady Constable- Pushpa Rajput. After search, ganja was found in a bag from possession of the appellant. After weighing the article, the same was found to be 1 kg and 200 grams. Sample of 50 grams was separated from the seized article. The sample and rest of the article were sealed and information was sent to Superintendent of Police, Durg.

7. The sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and acknowledgement of depositing the sample is Ex. P/34. Seized article was produced before the trial court. As per report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P/36), test of ganja was found positive. Version of this witness is supported by version of Head Constable- Prakash Das who received the information regarding offence in the office of Superintendent of Police, Durg. Again, it is supported by version of Head Constable- Bihari Lal Banjare (PW-7) who is in-charge of Malkhana and who received the seized article and kept the same in Malkhana. As per version of this witness, sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination through Constable- Ramesh Yadav and test report is received with article through Constable No. 1465. All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could